Cripple but Don't Kill

[perceptron]

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I strongly believe the turn structure needs to be overhauled.

In particular, I have adopted a Cripple but Don't Kill strategy, and have been unbeatable. In essence, beat every character on the opposing team down to 1 strength but don't finish them off. The 1 strength characters are basically useless, but take up a turn nonetheless.

For example, consider a case where 3 of my characters are defeated and the other 3 have full strength. My opponent has all 6 of his characters, but 3 of them are crippled. Then over the next series of 6 turns, I will have 3 full strength characters attack twice while my opponent will have 3 full strength characters attack once, and 3 useless crippled characters waste a turn.

They really need to implement some alternative to the alternative turn structure...

[erom]

This is sort of working as intended. That's the whole point of making strength both damage and health - to make the maim/kill choice tactically interesting. Most of the time, except for certain edge cases, you SHOULD be trying to leave units wounded but alive.

Congratulations, in a way, you've figured out one of the important elements of strategy in this game.

[Jawbone78]

Why? That's a perfectly acceptable strategy, if you can pull it off. If the other guy's doing the same, your advantage disappears, right? And if he's better than you on top, you still lose. Most people seem to like the fact that the game forces you to make choices in your strategy, as opposed to just smashy smashy.

[Lekkit]

I think it works fine. Every strategy game has it's optimal strategy due to mechanics, and crippling dudes is a part of this game's optimal strategy. I don't think that's wrong at all. Dudes with high Break stat can do stuff even without much health, and Thrashers have Bloody Flail, which doesn't care about Strength at all. I've even won games due to echoing low Strength hits from a Warhawk. Make sure to make your units count even when crippled. Also, you'll not only be crippled yourself, but cripple your enemy as well. So in the end it's a war of attrition.

Finaly, a simple question: Why would the game be better if the best strategy is to kill the enemy instead of wounding them?

[sweetjer]

Yup, this is the game right here. The biggest change to this particular mechanic that we've seen is Pillage!, which was introduced to curtail the effectiveness of an untouched lone archer in the endgame vs a team of hobbled units (before pillage!, the archer would move every-other turn, and the effect was that the team with only 1 unit had an effective team of 6 full health archers). The turn system is one of my favorite parts of the game and I would hate to see it changed further. So, to reiterate what some of the other posters have said, welcome to TBS:F. Once you're playing games against some of the more experienced players I think you'll see that there's a deeper strategy at play than "keep everyone at 1 health", as if you let my BB stick around with 1, he'll mash up all your armor. Same thing for my SM if I'm fielding him. Please do leave him at 1 health. My puncture will thank you at the end.

[piotras]

That's unique about the system, it's not broken and can't imagine that being changed/modified.

[Flickerdart]

One of the brilliant things about Banner Saga is exactly this. In every other tactics game, the only effective strategy is focus fire on the enemy's most dangerous unit until it dies, which is kind of boring. In Factions, you get to choose - do I want this unit crippled, so that the enemy wastes his turn? Do I want it dead, so that it can't get in my way, or use its special ability? Do I need the extra willpower in my Horn more than I need my opponent to have a crippled unit?

Having these considerations adds an extra tactical element to the game that simply doesn't exist otherwise.

[raven2134]

You know, as someone who's been in the beta and a part of that forums area since day 1, I have to say we've come a long long way with the game mechanics. Its quite something to think that way back then, this was a very heated and impassioned debate.

It's nice to see that while some players are discovering the unique elements to Factions, its quirks and inner workings, people aren't all that averse to it and are adapting. At the very least, we're not regressing back toward the old argument even with the influx of new players.

Seriously, we had players yelling "GIVE ME DEATHSPIRAL NAO" or something along those lines.

[scase]

I personally love the maim strategy. While it's a viable way to lock your opponent down, as a few others have pointed out it's also a good way to think you have the upper hand and have it bite you in the ass due to abilities that function regardless of str.

I can't count how many times someone's maimed a thrasher of mine and assumed he's a wasted turn. 3 armor and a 4 str smash say hi!

[mouton]

Maiming is fun. It does suck when your enemy has a lot of classes that are effective even when they are maimed, like thrashers and backbiters.

[DThrasher]

Of the tactical strategy games I've played, TBS:F is the first to really bring the maim/kill decision into the spotlight. Having played since the early days of the beta, I've really come to like it.

I think it suits the style and the lore of the game. A combatant on the verge of blacking out isn't going to be effective with a sword or axe. Better to focus your attention on the fresh units instead of the walking wounded.